The one that annoys me is the notion that if one does not have cable, they must not watch a lot of TV.

I must be an outlier. I have nothing to do BUT watch TV. With the amount of time I have on my hands these days, you'd probably think I struggle to find something to watch.
Nope. My 2TB Tivo capacity is at 90% and I have another 2TB worth of shows sitting on my computer. Way more than I have time to watch. I would just be throwing money away if I subscribed to cable.

Because most of the content is on cable, and a lot of the good stuff is even moving upwards to HBO. At this point, I consider TV to be the second digital package up (XF Preferred on Comcast) plus HBO, as that's where the majority of the good content is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncted

Or perhaps you are just unaware of how much is available online? Perhaps you could go through your Season Passes and share some shows which aren't available online, because, as I said, I only found 1 in my list.

It's very hit or miss. Some stuff is and some stuff isn't. So if you want to watch particular shows, you're going to find some that aren't online. Then you add sports and HBO, and cable is very well entrenched.

Alright, my Season Passes, not including a whole bunch that aren't active right now:

NOVA- available through PBS online or OTA
Frontline- available through PBS online or OTA
Nature- available through PBS online or OTA
VICE- HBO only
Silicon Valley- HBO only
Real Time with Bill Maher- HBO only
Cosmos- OTA, not available streaming
Mythbusters- Purchase only through Amazon, iTunes, VUDU
This Old House- available through PBS online or OTA
Big Bang Theory- OTA or purchase through Amazon, iTunes, VUDU
Daily Show- available delayed through web or purchase
Colbert Report- available delayed through web or purchase
Last Week Tonight- HBO only
The Rachel Maddow Show- available delayed through iTunes podcast
Manual: Monday Night HBO Docs- HBO only
American Experience- available through PBS online or OTA

So the breakdown is it's mostly HBO and sports, plus some shows that require a purchase or are delayed (or both). Once I move to an area that has AJAM, I will watch some of that as well. I have watched other stuff on Discovery and Animal Planet as well, although those have gone way downhill.

Now add in the cost of buying some shows a la carte, take away the convenience of TiVo for shows that aren't available OTA, and add in the cost of the Comcast de-bundling fee, and you can see why cord cutting is mostly hype. I also want to get into a few other HBO shows, and I've watched some really good documentaries on HBO GO, so that's more cable tie-in right there.

Quote:

I can say that the HD OTA broadcasts I get now on my TVs are less "soft" and "bright" than the same shows I get from Dish. I am not saying Dish looks bad, but OTA looks better. I am not an expert in what things should look like on a properly calibrated set, so my descriptions are just my personal impressions.

No matter where they are getting the feed, they are likely compressing it heavily. MPEG-4 is a lot better with motion, but it tends to get soft quickly as well if it's bitrate starved.

It's very hit or miss. Some stuff is and some stuff isn't. So if you want to watch particular shows, you're going to find some that aren't online. Then you add sports and HBO, and cable is very well entrenched.

Alright, my Season Passes, not including a whole bunch that aren't active right now:

VICE- HBO only
Silicon Valley- HBO only
Real Time with Bill Maher- HBO only
Daily Show- available delayed through web or purchase
Colbert Report- available delayed through web or purchase
...

So, first of all, you and I watch many of the same shows, minus the sports. The Daily Show and Colbert are also available on Hulu BTW. HBO is the toughest to deal with, especially Maher. Most original programming is available on iTunes, including VICE, but you do have to wait a while for it. Alternately, you can get it on Netflix Blu-Ray in the mail, if you can wait even longer. Sadly, Maher only seems to be available as an audio podcast. This is the same issue I ran into with the Suze Orman show my wife watches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigg

Now add in the cost of buying some shows a la carte, take away the convenience of TiVo for shows that aren't available OTA, and add in the cost of the Comcast de-bundling fee, and you can see why cord cutting is mostly hype. I also want to get into a few other HBO shows, and I've watched some really good documentaries on HBO GO, so that's more cable tie-in right there.

No matter where they are getting the feed, they are likely compressing it heavily. MPEG-4 is a lot better with motion, but it tends to get soft quickly as well if it's bitrate starved.

As I already have to use an interface other than the DVR to watch lots of TV, doing it more often really isn't an inconvenience in my mind. My cable option (TWC) is so bad, I am already paying for Internet only as I am on Dish. Getting rid of Dish is $100+ per month I can spend on other stuff, including individual seasons of shows.

About half the people I know locally have cut the cord in some fashion or another (Netflix/Amazon only or some combination of OTA and streaming). People are sick of high prices for the what they are getting, and many will find other ways to get their content for less. I already watch so few things live, or even the next day, and I have so much to choose from, that waiting a year for the new season of some show isn't really a big deal in most cases.

I think the consensus on Dish MPEG4 is it is fairly bit-starved and we also know it is down-rezed to 1440x1080 for 1080i content.

So, first of all, you and I watch many of the same shows, minus the sports. The Daily Show and Colbert are also available on Hulu BTW. HBO is the toughest to deal with, especially Maher. Most original programming is available on iTunes, including VICE, but you do have to wait a while for it. Alternately, you can get it on Netflix Blu-Ray in the mail, if you can wait even longer. Sadly, Maher only seems to be available as an audio podcast. This is the same issue I ran into with the Suze Orman show my wife watches.

So you have good taste in TV.

The purchase delays are long, and you're back to buying individual episodes, and it ends up being as much as cable with way less content. How quickly are Colbert and Stewart up on Hulu? It's just such a mess.

Quote:

As I already have to use an interface other than the DVR to watch lots of TV, doing it more often really isn't an inconvenience in my mind. My cable option (TWC) is so bad, I am already paying for Internet only as I am on Dish. Getting rid of Dish is $100+ per month I can spend on other stuff, including individual seasons of shows.

I like TiVo, where everything is pulled down from cable and available in one nice, clean interface for me to watch, and available throughout the house. The other services are a relative kludge. If I had to go through some other device, there's no way I'd be able to watch the shows that I do.

Quote:

About half the people I know locally have cut the cord in some fashion or another (Netflix/Amazon only or some combination of OTA and streaming). People are sick of high prices for the what they are getting, and many will find other ways to get their content for less. I already watch so few things live, or even the next day, and I have so much to choose from, that waiting a year for the new season of some show isn't really a big deal in most cases.

I think the consensus on Dish MPEG4 is it is fairly bit-starved and we also know it is down-rezed to 1440x1080 for 1080i content.

I know a few cord nevers, but all of them have access to cabe at some other location, and some have logins for the services as well. Most people I know have some sort of cable service...

Yeah, it's not technically HD. It's controversial, since it may avoid even worse bit starvation if they used the full resolution at a similar bitrate, but it's still not right.

The purchase delays are long, and you're back to buying individual episodes, and it ends up being as much as cable with way less content. How quickly are Colbert and Stewart up on Hulu? It's just such a mess.

Colbert and Stewart are on Hulu the next day. The April 30 shows are up today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigg

I like TiVo, where everything is pulled down from cable and available in one nice, clean interface for me to watch, and available throughout the house. The other services are a relative kludge. If I had to go through some other device, there's no way I'd be able to watch the shows that I do.

Well, the nice thing is Netflix, Hulu, (and hopefully Amazon Prime soon?) are all viewable and searchable on Tivo, which is actually one of the reasons I am interested in the Roamio.

Colbert and Stewart are on Hulu the next day. The April 30 shows are up today.

That's not bad, but it still doesn't cover everything else...

Quote:

Well, the nice thing is Netflix, Hulu, (and hopefully Amazon Prime soon?) are all viewable and searchable on Tivo, which is actually one of the reasons I am interested in the Roamio.

That's still not nearly as quick and easy as just playing back a recording... I don't mind searching around for some oddball content or movies, which I already do as a supplement to cable, but for regular usage, it would be a real PITA.

That's still not nearly as quick and easy as just playing back a recording... I don't mind searching around for some oddball content or movies, which I already do as a supplement to cable, but for regular usage, it would be a real PITA.

I guess I am already used to it. It is a requirement for us today. Doing it more isn't a big deal.

Sorry to annoy you. Perhaps you could describe what exactly is annoying about wanting less of my money to go for things I don't like and more to go to the things I do like?

Thanks,
Ted

The annoying part is you complain about paying for content you don't watch while forgetting this also means you are paying much less (than you otherwise would) for the content you do watch. Remember others are saying the same thing as you and paying for the channels you watch and they don't.

And you say this while watching 25-30 hrs a tv per week. The math seems like it works out in your favor. It sounds like a cabletv/satellitetv package is actually a great deal for you. Not sure why you would be complaining.

The annoying part is you complain about paying for content you don't watch while forgetting this also means you are paying much less (than you otherwise would) for the content you do watch. Remember others are saying the same thing as you and paying for the channels you watch and they don't.

And you say this while watching 25-30 hrs a tv per week. The math seems like it works out in your favor. It sounds like a cabletv/satellitetv package is actually a great deal for you. Not sure why you would be complaining.

Yeah, that's why cord cutting is so over-hyped. Everything quickly adds up to be the same or more than cable anyways...

The annoying part is you complain about paying for content you don't watch while forgetting this also means you are paying much less (than you otherwise would) for the content you do watch. Remember others are saying the same thing as you and paying for the channels you watch and they don't.

And you say this while watching 25-30 hrs a tv per week. The math seems like it works out in your favor. It sounds like a cabletv/satellitetv package is actually a great deal for you. Not sure why you would be complaining.

Sorry you don't see it. It is a simple proposition: pay the same or (most likely) less and still get to watch the things I like while not funding drivel I care nothing for. If that isn't for you, I am not annoyed. Not sure why you care, but you clearly do, so my deepest apologies.

Sorry you don't see it. It is a simple proposition: pay the same or (most likely) less and still get to watch the things I like while not funding drivel I care nothing for. If that isn't for you, I am not annoyed. Not sure why you care, but you clearly do, so my deepest apologies.

I understand what you want and where you're coming from. But you are ignoring the much higher rates you would pay per channel in an ala carte option. And don't seem to very cognizant of how much your 25-30 hrs of tv watching per week sits in the sweet spot of value derived from a cable or satellite tv package.

You only mention how your satellite tv package negatively affects you when making your argument.

Yeah, that's why cord cutting is so over-hyped. Everything quickly adds up to be the same or more than cable anyways...

Exactly.

I never quite understood it except from the perspective of a person or couple who watches very little tv or doesn't mind watching whatever older content.

I've lived in 3 quite different parts of the country in the past 5 years and I've had the expanded basic type of cable package and its never been more than $60/month. Right now it's like $40 something maybe $50. It was $30/month for the 1st year. I own all my own equipment.

But yet when people talk about the price of their cabletv package they always quote $100+/month??!??

That never made sense and from what I've always seen is people are including their internet cost in there and then making it look like they are going to save that entire $100/month if they cut the cord. Plus of course have no drop in content. It never makes any sense.

If you want to save, then instead of cord cutting, just switch satellite/cabletv providers every year or two.

I never quite understood it except from the perspective of a person or couple who watches very little tv or doesn't mind watching whatever older content.

I've lived in 3 quite different parts of the country in the past 5 years and I've had the expanded basic type of cable package and its never been more than $60/month. Right now it's like $40 something maybe $50. It was $30/month for the 1st year. I own all my own equipment.

But yet when people talk about the price of their cabletv package they always quote $100+/month??!??

That never made sense and from what I've always seen is people are including their internet cost in there and then making it look like they are going to save that entire $100/month if they cut the cord. Plus of course have no drop in content. It never makes any sense.

If you want to save, then instead of cord cutting, just switch satellite/cabletv providers every year or two.

It really depends on each person/famlies situation. I "cut the cord" years ago, I watch maybe 2-3 hours of TV per day and have plenty of stuff to watch (in fact more than I have time for as I have about 7 TBs of saved shows now). But I live alone and am not to picky when it comes to what I watch and have access to Redbox to rent movies at a very low cost.

Regarding what Pay TV costs - as everyone knows it is all over the place, my Parents have dish network, 2 receivers no DVRs, SD only, the second tier package with no premiums and it costs $78/mo. For them spending the $78 makes perfect sense, however for me it would be a ridiculous waist of money.

I never quite understood it except from the perspective of a person or couple who watches very little tv or doesn't mind watching whatever older content.

I've lived in 3 quite different parts of the country in the past 5 years and I've had the expanded basic type of cable package and its never been more than $60/month. Right now it's like $40 something maybe $50. It was $30/month for the 1st year. I own all my own equipment.

But yet when people talk about the price of their cabletv package they always quote $100+/month??!??

That never made sense and from what I've always seen is people are including their internet cost in there and then making it look like they are going to save that entire $100/month if they cut the cord. Plus of course have no drop in content. It never makes any sense.

If you want to save, then instead of cord cutting, just switch satellite/cabletv providers every year or two.

The TV portion on most providers is in the $70 range plus HBO, and that's with no equipment. Since you move around a lot, I'd imagine that you've had promo deals for a year or two at a time?

I understand what you want and where you're coming from. But you are ignoring the much higher rates you would pay per channel in an ala carte option. And don't seem to very cognizant of how much your 25-30 hrs of tv watching per week sits in the sweet spot of value derived from a cable or satellite tv package.

I don't care that I would pay much higher rates _PER CHANNEL_. I only care about the total I would pay _for what I actually watch_.. and I would possibly be willing to pay SLIGHTLY more for the "same" amount of stuff (that I care about) in an a la carte world. Similar to how a half gallon of milk costs more per ounce than a gallon of milk... But if you're wasting a half gallon, it's not really a "waste" to pay more.. (though you can freeze half of it, heh)

But yet when people talk about the price of their cabletv package they always quote $100+/month??!??

That never made sense and from what I've always seen is people are including their internet cost in there and then making it look like they are going to save that entire $100/month if they cut the cord. Plus of course have no drop in content. It never makes any sense.

If you want to save, then instead of cord cutting, just switch satellite/cabletv providers every year or two.

Dish AT200 plus Hopper and 1 Joey costs me $102/month. TWC whole home DVR with one remote box and the digital tier would cost about $130. I've tried TWC, both with their box and TiVo, and it is not a reasonable option. If I could get DirecTV, which I cannot due to line of sight issues, it would be about $110 for a similar setup. None of those includes internet, which is $55 when I have satellite or $33 when I had cable. I already pay for Netflix and Amazon, so how am I not going to save money by switching to OTA?

I don't care that I would pay much higher rates _PER CHANNEL_. I only care about the total I would pay _for what I actually watch_.. and I would possibly be willing to pay SLIGHTLY more for the "same" amount of stuff (that I care about) in an a la carte world. Similar to how a half gallon of milk costs more per ounce than a gallon of milk... But if you're wasting a half gallon, it's not really a "waste" to pay more.. (though you can freeze half of it, heh)

I don't care that I would pay much higher rates _PER CHANNEL_. I only care about the total I would pay _for what I actually watch_.. and I would possibly be willing to pay SLIGHTLY more for the "same" amount of stuff (that I care about) in an a la carte world. Similar to how a half gallon of milk costs more per ounce than a gallon of milk... But if you're wasting a half gallon, it's not really a "waste" to pay more.. (though you can freeze half of it, heh)

If you're watching 25-30 hrs/wk of tv then you are likely to pay more overall by choosing an ala carte option. ONe of the reasons being is because your cost per channel will go up dramatically.

This all annoys me because I never hear anyone mention how much less they are paying for the channels they do watch when paying for a package.

It's always only whining abou the paying for channels you don't watch. I guess I should whine that I'm paying for 99% of the movies on Netflix I don't watch too. Maybe I should just be able to pay for only the ones I do watch and get charged $1/month instead.

That makes as much sense as these ala carte arguments. IT shows a lack of understanding of how the pricing works.

Hell same thing with channels themselves which use the same business model as the cable company only they sell you a package of shows instead of a package of channels. No one watches all the programming from one channel either.

The milk analogy doesn't make sense here. A buffet analogy makes more sense. Do you go to a buffet and then cry that you are paying for the foods you don't care to eat? Do you wish you could only pay for the foods you do eat? Did you know if you were to order the foods you do eat ala carte then they would likely cost you more money than the buffet price unless you're eating much less than an average share of food? Same thing here.

I get annoyed people are so lazy about their argument for ala carte. They just make a broad generalization that they will pay less if they only pay for the channels they watch. It isn't a very informed viewpoint.

Dish AT200 plus Hopper and 1 Joey costs me $102/month. TWC whole home DVR with one remote box and the digital tier would cost about $130. I've tried TWC, both with their box and TiVo, and it is not a reasonable option. If I could get DirecTV, which I cannot due to line of sight issues, it would be about $110 for a similar setup. None of those includes internet, which is $55 when I have satellite or $33 when I had cable. I already pay for Netflix and Amazon, so how am I not going to save money by switching to OTA?

You're doing the same sort of thing I complain about in my post. You say it isn't with internet, but it is still such an apples and oranges comparison.

Comparing OTA and Netflix to DISH's 3rd cheapest package.

Not only is the content really different (the amount and timeliness of the content,) but you're not even choosing one of the cheapest DISH packages. And you are including equipment rental fees in your DISH offering that let you time shift while I guess in your OTA alternative you just won't time shift?

SAme thing with your Time Warner numbers I'm sure.

Plus no mention of the discounts you can get from any provider during your first year. Nor how you can switch providers every year or two to help keep prices low.

I just love how everyone cord cutting is paying for way more expensive cable packages than I ever paid for in my life. And I've always had a fairly average package of all the major cable channels.

It's always only whining abou the paying for channels you don't watch. I guess I should whine that I'm paying for 99% of the movies on Netflix I don't watch too. Maybe I should just be able to pay for only the ones I do watch and get charged $1/month instead.

You *CAN* do that, NOT THROUGH NETFLIX though.

You already CAN PPV for movies.. Not $1/month, but pretty darn cheaply through Redbox...

I admit I'm basically asking for a hybrid of the "all you can eat" and PPV worlds.

Yes, I think eventually we will get to something closer to utopia, with everything available all the time (but it will only be closer to utopia if it's available WITHOUT COMMERCIALS, for a higher price of course).

As it is now, I don't mind the channel paradigm. So I can pay for a channel, which you can call a "bundle" of similar programming if you want to (heh).. so with my Tivo, I would get "all I can eat" on the specific channel(s) I paid for.

If you're watching 25-30 hrs/wk of tv then you are likely to pay more overall by choosing an ala carte option. ONe of the reasons being is because your cost per channel will go up dramatically.

This all annoys me because I never hear anyone mention how much less they are paying for the channels they do watch when paying for a package.

It's always only whining abou the paying for channels you don't watch. I guess I should whine that I'm paying for 99% of the movies on Netflix I don't watch too. Maybe I should just be able to pay for only the ones I do watch and get charged $1/month instead.

That makes as much sense as these ala carte arguments. IT shows a lack of understanding of how the pricing works.

Hell same thing with channels themselves which use the same business model as the cable company only they sell you a package of shows instead of a package of channels. No one watches all the programming from one channel either.

The milk analogy doesn't make sense here. A buffet analogy makes more sense. Do you go to a buffet and then cry that you are paying for the foods you don't care to eat? Do you wish you could only pay for the foods you do eat? Did you know if you were to order the foods you do eat ala carte then they would likely cost you more money than the buffet price unless you're eating much less than an average share of food? Same thing here.

I get annoyed people are so lazy about their argument for ala carte. They just make a broad generalization that they will pay less if they only pay for the channels they watch. It isn't a very informed viewpoint.

I think I will make some general comments on the concept of A La Cart video or more specifically video obtained by some method other than a cable/satellite bundle of services.

First lets be clear, it is here now, most people access some video by one or more of the A La Cart methods now, it can provide nearly unlimited video choices, and with a little restraint can easily costs significantly less than paying for cable or satellite bundled services. Pretty much the only thing that isn't available A La Cart now is the ability to purchase access to individual cable only channel streams (note much of the content is available via some other A La Cart method).

In the world of video consumption - content is King - when, where, and for how much (dollars and effort) a person can obtain it, is really what this is all about. Some content will be more easily obtain via a cable channel, other content will be more easily obtained via some other A La Cart method, some content will only be available one way or the other and some content via either method.

The question that each household has to ask itself is if the convenience and specific content available via various cable or satellite packages is worth the cost. For many (most) families that answer will likely be that it is worth the cost, the reality is if you bundle a good DVR with pretty much any cable/satellite package you have easy access to a nearly unlimited supply of content.

That said anyone who doesn't think you can obtain 30+/- hours of content per week via (legal) A La Cart methods for less than the cost of cable/satellite packages either isn't trying very hard or is having their view clouded by their desire for specific content that they believe is only on cable channels or significantly easier to obtain via cable channels.

You already CAN PPV for movies.. Not $1/month, but pretty darn cheaply through Redbox...

Why not just mention the library while we're at it and how you can get movies for free in response to my point? Makes as much sense.

I never said you can't rent movies today or buy shows ala carte. I said, when referring to Netflix, that some people want to select their 10 shows from Netflix that they watch and be able to pay $1/month instead. I'm saying that's not how things work. It doesn't quite work like milk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattack

I admit I'm basically asking for a hybrid of the "all you can eat" and PPV worlds.

Yes, I think eventually we will get to something closer to utopia, with everything available all the time (but it will only be closer to utopia if it's available WITHOUT COMMERCIALS, for a higher price of course).

As it is now, I don't mind the channel paradigm. So I can pay for a channel, which you can call a "bundle" of similar programming if you want to (heh).. so with my Tivo, I would get "all I can eat" on the specific channel(s) I paid for.

Ok I guess your point is you want channels ala carte and shows ala carte. Well, via streaming and discs, we have ala carte shows. We don't have channel ala carte. I'm not against channel ala carte at all. And I'm not saying channel ala carte is a(n) utopia. I'm saying the utopia is ...the average tv viewer expecting to order their channels ala carte while paying much less. That's a massive assumption especially if we say average tv household instead of viewer.

First lets be clear, it is here now, most people access some video by one or more of the A La Cart methods can provide nearly unlimited video choices, and with a little restraint can easily costs significantly less than paying for cable or satellite bundled services.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atmuscarella

The question that each household has to ask itself is if the convenience and specific content available via various cable or satellite packages is worth the cost. For many (most) families that answer will likely be that it is worth the cost, the reality is if you bundle a good DVR with pretty much any cable/satellite package you have easy access to a nearly unlimited supply of content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atmuscarella

That said anyone who doesn't think you can obtain 30+/- hours of content per week via (legal) A La Cart methods for less than the cost of cable/satellite packages either isn't trying very hard or is having their view clouded by their desire for specific content that they believe is only on cable channels or significantly easier to obtain via cable channels.

Your 2nd paragraph that I quoted doesn't seem to agree with your 1st and 3rd. I got a mixed message at least.

And this notion you can get 30 hrs cheaper ala carte is way too broad a brushstroke. I mean it depends on what you watch.

I mean if you watch mostly network tv and can get all those shows OTA then your generalization starts to ring true. But if you watch a healthy dose of cable shows and few network shows then it stops ringing true.

And not sure if you are thinking a family of 4 typically only watches 30 hrs a week?

That said anyone who doesn't think you can obtain 30+/- hours of content per week via (legal) A La Cart methods for less than the cost of cable/satellite packages either isn't trying very hard or is having their view clouded by their desire for specific content that they believe is only on cable channels or significantly easier to obtain via cable channels.

It's not about the availability of content in general. There's tons of content out there without cable. The issue is availability of specific content. Look at HBO's lineup, and then sports, and with either one of those, not to mention both combined, you have to have cable.

It was the reply I thought your post deserved as I had already made my arguments to the contrary for my specific viewing habits. Your antiquated assertions do not resemble the current landscape, and you do not seem interested in learning that times have changed. It is no longer 1999.

It is not my job to disabuse you. If you are happy paying what you do for what you have, I would not attempt to convince you otherwise. My purpose here is to focus on improving the value proposition for my wife and myself. Thanks for your feedback in any case.

Your 2nd paragraph that I quoted doesn't seem to agree with your 1st and 3rd. I got a mixed message at least.

And this notion you can get 30 hrs cheaper ala carte is way too broad a brushstroke. I mean it depends on what you watch.

I mean if you watch mostly network tv and can get all those shows OTA then your generalization starts to ring true. But if you watch a healthy dose of cable shows and few network shows then it stops ringing true.

And not sure if you are thinking a family of 4 typically only watches 30 hrs a week?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigg

It's not about the availability of content in general. There's tons of content out there without cable. The issue is availability of specific content. Look at HBO's lineup, and then sports, and with either one of those, not to mention both combined, you have to have cable.

I think I will respond to both of your posts together and in a general way. I think it is likely we have generational differences and very likely a different view on the over all value of video consumption.

When I was a kid all we had was one black & white TV for a family of 5 and it got 4 channels (5 when I was older). There was no cable/satellite and VHS tapes hadn't been dreamed of yet. So you either watched one of the 4-5 channels or went to the movies. With that very limited amount of choice we always had something we wanted to watch and looked forward to watching a few hours of TV every night.

Well allot has changed since then, one thing is the value I put on spending time consuming video. I still enjoy "watching TV" a few hours a day, but look at it as primarily spending a few hours effectively doing nothing, while being mildly entertained. I actually have as much fun setting up my equipment (DVRs, streaming devices, HTPC, antennas, etc.) and playing with it as I do watching the video they give me access to. So as you can guess I enjoy spending time figuring out ways to access more video content without having cable/satellite as much or more than actually watching the video.

So based on my personal experience, preferences, and value I place on video consumption, I find it laughable that anyone believes you "need" a cable/satellite sub to have access to enough video content.

That said I also understand the benefit (and value) of cable/satellite for most households that just want easy access to lots of content.

On the conversation about having cable/satellite channels available A La Cart, I don't ever see it happen without a Government mandate as none of the companies involved would benefit enough to force the change. On if such an A La Cart system would cost less or not, not likely, but it could if again the Government mandated a full A La Cart only system, no packages, no bundling allow period, and then treated the delivery system as a regulated utility. That would force "channels" to compete on price for their content which might drive prices down.

There is a good dream - all cable and telephone lines removed and replaced with one very high speed fiber line to every home in the country. The fiber line owners become regulated utilities and not allowed to deliver any services.